Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama? Read more: http://www.newstimes.com

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Iriemon, May 19, 2012.

  1. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing the GOP could do would sabotage the economy as thoroughly as the EPA causing electric rates to quintuple.

    Nothing.
     
  2. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well sure they could. I nice little default on the debt would do just as nicely as your imaginary increase.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 2001 budget was the last budget of the Clinton era, Bush's first budget was FY 2002. Bush hadn't even been elected and revenues were already dropping. Don't let the facts confuse you.




    Are you claiming the CBO 2011 deficited wasn't estimated at $1,600 billion, now THAT would be a false statement.

    Nope from the $161 billion the last year Bush and the Republicans controlled the purse strings. And you seem ignorant of the fact that Obama was a full voting member of the Democrat Congress which created those deficits. Why is that? Amazing you try to hit Bush up on deficits but then support Obama's which which make his look like chump change.
     
  4. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What confuses me is how you use Bush's last budget when you post data about Obama, but ignore the first 1-3 years when you post data about Bush.




    No, you're claiming I claimed that is a false statement.

    Nope 2009 budget was the last budget of the Bush era, Obama's first budget was FY 2010.

    LOL - a blatant double standard all in one post.
     
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Easy when the facts are on your side. It was the Democrats refusal to deal with the underlying causes of the deficits that caused it, not the political process.

    "NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the credit rating of the United States, stripping the world's largest economy of its prized AAA status.

    In July, S&P placed the United States' rating on "CreditWatch with negative implications" as the debt ceiling debate devolved into partisan bickering.

    To avoid a downgrade, S&P said the United States needed to not only raise the debt ceiling, but also develop a "credible" plan to tackle the nation's long-term debt.

    In its report Friday, S&P ruled that the U.S. fell short: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."

    S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed." (FAQ: Behind the downgrade)

    A Treasury Department spokesman pushed back on the rating change, saying that S&P's analysis was flawed.

    A source familiar with the matter said S&P initially miscalculated the growth trajectory of the nation's debt, and then went ahead with its downgrade anyway.

    The source also said S&P didn't give enough credit for the debt-ceiling compromise, which paved the way for more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years.

    However, one of S&P's explicit criticisms of the compromise was that it didn't address the biggest drivers of the nation's debt -- Social Security and Medicare -- and didn't allow for additional tax revenue. ("What's wrong with the debt ceiling deal?")

    John Chambers, Head of Sovereign Ratings for S&P, told CNN that though S&P didn't have a specific target in mind, the total debt reduction package was not sufficient. Chambers also noted that the plan did not take steps in the near term to boost economic growth. "
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm
     
  6. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean how Bush went into two unfunded wars, expanded a medicare prescription plan, and cut taxs? Thus destroying the economy? You mean that? Ya... Im afraid democrats had very little to do with that.


    Nice try though.
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for proving my point.

    The Republicans know that "uncertainty" is the worst thing for the economy, and so rather than simply pass a budget ceiling increase as was done dozens of times for Reagan and Bush, they created as much uncertainty as possible by extorting their political agenda.

    Why would they intentionally do something they themselves argue hurts the economy? Isn't it obvous?
     
  8. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...as would any decent American...we don't want a communist, or socialist country, but Obummer does and you will be crying with everyone else in about 2 years if you re-elect that horrible excuse for a politician.
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what is more important to you?

    Reducing the huge deficits that threaten our nation with ruin?

    Or keeping taxes at their current decades low levels?
     
  10. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the latter won't happen as he is going to wipe out the Bush tax cuts, so X that out. I would like to see my fellow Americans back at work instead of looking for jobs. I would like to see raises again like we use to, finally I would like to see Obama no more.
     
  11. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And what confuses me is how someone can defend "W" and atttack Obama or defend Obama and attack "W". They are joined at the hip in terms of massive entitlements we can't pay for and spending and wars abroad and illegal immigration etc.
     
  12. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So your definition of a decent American is someone who would keep millions of people out of work so their favored party would have a better chance in the next election? Funny, because that's not my definition of a decent anything. In fact, if I had to settle on a single adjective for someone who gleefully causes massive suffering for millions of people to advance their ideology, I think I'd have to go with "evil."

    Incidentally, why do I get the distinct impression you have absolutely no idea what "communism" and "socialism" actually mean? And that the fact that they don't mean at all the same thing is totally lost on you?
     
  13. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are so twisted that replying is near to impossible. I don't want to keep people from working, I'd like to see more people working and off the public dole. Social programs don't do that; the public sector does. As for communism and socialism I do know the difference...they are first cousins, one applying social programs to begin the process of making everyone equal and the other being a government that utilized those programs and went one step further having a ruling elite class and peasants. The government of any nation can't take care of everyone if everyone is unwilling or incapable of fending for themselves. Capitalism is the answer to a better future.
     
  14. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think our politicians understand the budget issue. But they choose to pander to an ignorant eletorate rather than stand up and compromise for the good of the nation.
     
  15. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for sharing your opion as to what you think will happen.

    How about answering my question?
     
  16. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are vastly different in a number of important ways.

    We can pay for the entitlements easily.
     
  17. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm twisted? I'm not the one who suggested that any decent American would try to keep the recession going in order to try to prevent Obama from being re-elected. Since you seem to have forgotten what you yourself just said, allow me to refresh your memory.

    Just to make things perfectly crystal clear - keeping the recession going means keeping millions of people out of work. Or did you think that the unemployment rate is just some abstract number? Did you think that wrecking the economy wouldn't have consequences for real people? Do you really think that ruining people's lives to try to hurt one politician you don't like is anything less then evil? Do you only care about your political ideology to the point that you see people as nothing more then disposable pawns to be used in advancing that ideology?

    Actions have consequences in the real world, for real people. Playing political games with the economy by its very nature will always mean crushing people's lives underfoot. Is that sort of person you are? Is that sort of person you want to be? If you have a choice between taking a political loss in the process of helping people and wining a political victory at the cost of hurting people, which is the moral choice to make?

    Being a moral adult means understanding the consequences of your actions and doing your honest best to make those consequences as positive for everyone as you can. And yes, that's a hard thing to do. Yes, that means putting a lot of work into thinking and questioning and understanding. And yes that means that sometimes you're going to have to make personal sacrifices. And yes that means that sometimes you're going to have to change ideas that you hold near and dear. and yes that means putting cold, hard, unpleasant reality above how you think things ought to be. It's not easy. But that's what it means to be a good person.

    If you really want to see more people working and off the public dole, the way to accomplish that is by getting the economy going again. And the way to do that is with stimulus. That's not an opinion, that's not a political view, that's a fact. 80 years of economic history prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.

    And no, you don't have the faintest idea what socialism and communism actually mean. Socialism is the idea that society as a whole has a responsibility to its members. It's the idea that people working together as a whole can accomplish more then individuals all acting purely in their own self interest. It's the idea that organizations supported by and accountable to society as a whole can do real and lasting good. Socialism does not envision a classless society where everyone is equal. Nor does it wish to abolish private property or private employment. What socialism does advocate is using government (or an analogous organization) to correct the problems and injustices caused by a completely unrestrained free market.

    Communism, on the other hand, wants to do away with government completely. "In the end, the state shall wither away." Communism wands to get rid of elites and aristocracies. It wants to put control of the means of production in the hands of the people who actually do the producing. Communism is actually the logical extreme of egalitarianism and libertarianism. It's also (in my opinion) completely impractical and unworkable, but that's another discussion.

    We've tried pure, unrestrained laissez faire capitalism, in the late 19th and early 20th century. The result was an economy that spent 45% of the time in recession, compared to 15% of the time since WWII. It gave us the Long Depression - a roughly twenty year period of a stagnant to receding economy. It gave us the Great Depression. It gave us grinding poverty and precious little social mobility. It gave us child labor and horrendous working conditions where people were routinely maimed or killed by their work. There's a reason the period is called the Gilded Age. The shiny exterior was only skin deep.

    Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason you find it nearly impossible to respond to me is not because I'm twisted, but because you haven't put the thought and effort into your positions to make them able to stand up to a critical analysis. There may be nothing more tragic then the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact, but there is also nothing more essential to successfully dealing with the real world.
     
  18. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You allegation that Obama is a Socialist of any kind is pure fantasy. He is a slightly left leaning centrist. The problem for the Ultra Right wingers is that they have gone so far to the Right that they think the John Birch Society is a leftist group.The tea party fanatics would destroy this nation if we were ever to see them actually gain control of our government. The people who are financially backing them, such as the Koch Bros. have no desire to see a middle class even exist in this nation, they want only the very wealthy and serfs who provide cheap labor and if they aren't needed, then they would prefer to see the poor starve to death and decrease the surplus population.
     
  19. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, we can't.

    The socialist policies of the New Deal had a good long life, but it's time to put them to rest before they bankrupt the country. We can't afford them.
     
  20. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With $480 trillion in income we could afford them easily.
     
  21. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And where is that going to come from?
     
  22. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same place the rest of our income comes from.
     
  23. JoanofArc

    JoanofArc New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [video=youtube;N_4OYwetMNw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_4OYwetMNw&feature=related[/video]

    With economic advisers & bundlers such as Jon Corzine, the Obama administration needs no help from the GOP to destroy the US economy.

    Dear Jesus, how much more can the US take by electing incompetent men to the highest office in the US? I place my burden upon your shoulders.
     
  24. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let's see a breakdown of this theoretical total that we can "easily pay our entitlements" with.
     
  25. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Take the $13 trillion current gross income and compound it about 5% for the next 75 years, which was the time frame from for you liabilities figures, and you get a gross national income of about $480 trillion in 75.

    More than enough to cover entitlements.
     

Share This Page